World Journal of Urology

, 27:151

Shortcomings of the current TNM classification for penile carcinoma: time for a change?

Topic Paper

Abstract

Introduction

Accurate tumor staging is essential in the management of malignancies. It provides a guide in selecting accurate treatment and gives an indication of prognosis based on the extent of disease. The current TNM classification for penile carcinoma has remained unchanged since 1987. In this article, we focus on several deficiencies of the current classification.

Materials and methods

An analysis of the current literature regarding the current classification was done, focusing on known prognostic factors for survival. Furthermore, we discuss in detail the results from a recent analysis of more than 500 patients treated at our institute to evaluate the practical and prognostic value of the TNM-classification.

Results

We found that, using the current classification system, accurate clinical staging is often difficult, because the T and N categories are defined by structures that are not easily identified using physical examination or imaging. Furthermore, the prognostic stratification of the present staging system is not optimal and there is a substantial overlap in disease-specific survival between several categories. We give an overview of modifications that could improve clinical staging and prognostic ability.

Conclusion

The current TNM classification for penile carcinoma has several shortcomings in terms of usability in clinical staging and prognostic value. With modifications clinical staging is facilitated, while the prognostic stratification of the classification is improved.

Keywords

Neoplasm staging Penile carcinoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Baker BH, Watson FR (1975) Staging carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol 7(3):243–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson SM (1966) The treatment of carcinoma of the penis. Br J Surg 53(1):33–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind CH (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Liss, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harmer MH (1978) TNM classification of malignant tumors. UICC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CC UI (1968) TNM classification of malignant tumours (Livre de Poche). UICC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leijte JA, Gallee MP, Antonini N et al (2008) Evaluation of current TNM classification for penile carcinoma. J Urol. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.11
  7. 7.
    Hegarty PK, Kayes O, Freeman A et al (2006) A prospective study of 100 cases of penile cancer managed according to European Association of Urology guidelines. BJU Int 98(3):526–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDougal WS (1995) Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol 154(4):1364–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solsona E, Iborra I, Ricos JV et al (1992) Corpus cavernosum invasion and tumor grade in the prediction of lymph node condition in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 22(2):115–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soria JC, Fizazi K, Piron D et al (1997) Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors and natural history in monocentric study with a conservative policy. Ann Oncol 8(11):1089–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horenblas S, van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF et al (1993) Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis III treatment of regional lymph nodes. J Urol 149(2 Pt 3):492–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Culkin DJ, Beer TM (2003) Advanced penile carcinoma. J Urol 170(1):359–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S et al (2004) EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol 46(1):1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR (2006) Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol 93(2):133–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ravi R (1993) Correlation between the extent of nodal involvement and survival following groin dissection for carcinoma of the penis. Br J Urol 72(3 Pt 2):817–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MP et al (2007) Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol 177(3):947–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daseler EH, Anson BJ, Reimann AF (1948) Radical excision of the inguinal and iliac lymph glands. A study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 87:679–694 Ref type: genericPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srinivas V, Morse MJ, Herr HW et al (1987) Penile cancer: relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol 137(5):880–882PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of UrologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations